Carrying trays for holding and carrying beverage cups are well-known and in widespread use throughout fast-food restaurants, stadiums, convenience stores, coffee shops and the like.
Typically, the trays are comprised of a main body portion provided with a number of cup-holding sockets. The number of cup-holding sockets can vary, depending on the style of the carrying tray. Multiple designs exist, each having different shapes and sizes of cup-holding sockets with varying degrees of accommodation for beverage cups of different shapes and sizes.
Over time the demands on these carrying trays have evolved. The fast-food restaurant industry has continued to increase maximum portion sizes, including the use of very large beverage cups for soft drinks. One type of beverage cup that has become very popular has a “step-walled” structure where the bottom portion of the cup is smaller in diameter than the top portion of the cup. These “step-walled” cups are designed to hold large amounts of beverage while maintaining a base small enough to fit into reasonably-sized cup holders, such as those present in automobiles or the arm rests of stadium seats. These cups often have the capacity to hold 32 or even 44 ounces of liquid. However, the design of these cups only provides a carrying tray with a smaller gripping area towards the bottom, while raising the height of the liquid load, thus making the cups top-heavy.
More recently, many restaurants have introduced and heavily marketed high-end coffee and tea beverages, which are typically served in smaller, narrower cups than traditional soda cups. These cups may only hold 10 or even less ounces of liquid.
These combined trends have created broader requirements on the range of cup sizes that must be accommodated by a cup carrier.
Manufacturers have attempted to accommodate the variety of large and small cup sizes in several ways. The most common method is to provide flexible members on the sides of the cup-holding sockets that deflect as the cup is inserted, in an attempt to accommodate a range of cup base sizes. Examples of this approach are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,208,006 to Bixler, 4,218,008 to Vellieux, and 6,398,056 to Letourneau. The problem with this approach has been that, due to the downward sloping walls, the contact point with the cup is related to the cup base size. Therefore, cups with smaller base sizes are gripped at very low points, thereby decreasing stability.
Another method to address this problem has been to increase the depth of the cup-holding sockets. A deeper socket can provide some tipping resistance to a small cup, even if it is not gripped securely. Some examples of this approach are illustrated in U.S. Pat. Nos. D438,100 to Cekota, and 7,225,927 to Sweeney. A drawback of this approach is that it necessitates a taller structure, preventing the design from being run on certain molding machines. Another disadvantage of this approach is that it increases the developed area of a carrier. If the product is made to the same weight as a shorter carrier, the weight per unit area must be lower, thereby weakening the structure. If the weight is increased to compensate, this results in higher material, energy, and transportation costs and increases the amount of natural resources used. Another disadvantage of this approach results because bundles of these carriers create taller stacks, thereby requiring an increase in storage space and shipping costs.
A third method has been to replace the angled sidewall members with short, flexible tabs. Some examples of this approach are illustrated in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,679,380 to Brown and 6,651,836 to Hofheins. The longer the tabs, the wider a range of cup sizes can be contacted by them. However, the longer the tabs, the weaker their gripping force becomes. Also, the rigidity of the socket structure is weakened due to the lack of material near the base of the socket. Cup tipping tendency may be greater if the bottoms of the cups are not captured by the socket.
A fourth method has been to provide sockets of different sizes on the same cup carrier, as shown for example in U.S. Pat. Nos. D319,579 to Vigue, 5,096,065 to Vigue, and 6,679,380 to Brown. The problem with this approach is that the practicality of the cup carrier is significantly decreased. Such a cup carrier is restricted to a limited number of combinations of large and small cups. The cup carriers disclosed in these references have four cup carrying sockets—two of which can only carry large cups and two of which can only carry small cups.
In addition to problems with cup fit discussed above, cup carriers also have been called upon to support heavier weights, due to the use of larger sized cups. Cup carriers that have been overloaded tend to buckle in a predictable manner, collapsing along a line between adjacent cup sockets, through or near the center of the tray. The area between the cup sockets is a weak point in a typical cup carrier. Some current designs have small, highly contoured areas in the center, which resist buckling, but provide little stabilization to the surrounding structure. Other designs have a wide, flat center pocket, which gives greater support to the surrounding structure, but can be easily buckled by direct application of force.
Accordingly, a need exists for a cup carrier capable of carrying beverage cups within a wide range of sizes, including large cups, “step-walled” cups, and small cups, in a secure and stable manner. A need also exists for a cup carrier capable of carrying several filled cups at a time without having the carrier collapse or buckle from the weight of the filled cups. A further need exists for a cup carrier that can be produced using pre-existing molding machines and is composed of less material.